Desperate AI bids

from Elemental Forums

I was responding in another thread about AI comebacks when I came up with this idea, which is present in the other thread as well as this one:

When an AI is clearly losing, they might have a priority shift, and assume a new decision making algorithm that dictates their behavior.  For instance, if they are slowly losing cities to you late game and it appears that they cannot gain allies to turn the tide, they have a good chance to switch to a desperate-times-call-for-desperate measures algorithm in which they might, say, move all of their units into one massive army, leave all but perhaps their capital defenseless, and book it toward your channeler/capital city in a risky move to seize victory from the jaws of defeat (think Battle of the Bulge).  If they are lucky enough to achieve this specific objective, it might improve the odds of other opponents (who were sitting on the fense or have poor diplomatic relations with you) being inspired to join with the cause against you.  If they succeed in turning the tide, they would revert back to their previous stable behavioral algorithm.

Now, this kind of strategic shift doesn't have to come precisely in this flavor or occur every single time you are winning a war late game, but the general idea is that the AI makes a desperate move that has a chance for catastrophic success or catastrophic failure--- the chance of either being contingent on how deep of a mess the AI is in.

This would serve to remedy a few separate problems.  First, it will challenge the player at a time when they would normally be slowly and tediously steam rolling opponents in other strategy games.  Second, if the AI is unsuccessful in its all or nothing bid, it is much easier to inflict a decisive defeat upon it, thus avoiding the boring chain of time-consuming-guarenteed-victory-battles involved with mopping up opponents (perhaps the remnants of the opponent's civilization will begin defecting over to you or offer an unconditional surrender once it has failed to reach its specific objective, with their remaining cities flipping over to you over the course of X number of turns.) 

This method doesn't require any cheating on the AI's part, but can still spice up the late game when victory looks like it is almost guarenteed.

9,890 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

Good concept.  I agree. 

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

Most diplomacy AI i've seen tend to exhibit suicidal tendencies.

Most AI don't sue for peace to cut their losses when they are clearly losing the war. Especially when they are fighting several fronts. They usually only sue for peace when they have been massacred, which by that time i wouldn't bother with peace as i am rushing to grab their territory before the other AI's grabs it. AI's just don't have any sense of self preservation until it's too late.

Another gripe i have always had is that AI's are incapable of weighing who's the bigger threat and where to focus their armies. Most of the time the AI will focus their attacks on the weaker foes. This is usually me as i usually have the smallest armies (cause i always play on impossible difficulty and can't match the AI in terms of unit production). Unfortunately this is dumb as a lot of times they expend too much energy on me allowing a bigger empire nearby to invade and conquer them. This leads me then to a lose the game as the enemy empire has grown too big for me to handle. In other words i lose, because idiot AI#1 lost to AI#2 and i couldn't expand fast enough to match AI#2. In other words, the game boils down to who can grab the most territories as fast as possible.

An AI with a bit more sense of self preservation would be welcome. AI's should ask for ceasefire treaties when things are getting too hot for them. AI's should also have an awareness of who is the bigger threat on their borders rather than always picking on the weaker neighbours. There should also be options for secretly funding a neigbouring empire so that you can use them as a buffer against a bigger empire.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

Heck, I always focus on the weakest first...it's just bad when it's a player, though I think most AIs have a tendancy to attack the player more than another AI.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting moondoggiee, reply 2
Most diplomacy AI i've seen tend to exhibit suicidal tendencies.

Most AI don't sue for peace to cut their losses when they are clearly losing the war. Especially when they are fighting several fronts. They usually only sue for peace when they have been massacred, which by that time i wouldn't bother with peace as i am rushing to grab their territory before the other AI's grabs it. AI's just don't have any sense of self preservation until it's too late.

Another gripe i have always had is that AI's are incapable of weighing who's the bigger threat and where to focus their armies. Most of the time the AI will focus their attacks on the weaker foes. This is usually me as i usually have the smallest armies (cause i always play on impossible difficulty and can't match the AI in terms of unit production). Unfortunately this is dumb as a lot of times they expend too much energy on me allowing a bigger empire nearby to invade and conquer them. This leads me then to a lose the game as the enemy empire has grown too big for me to handle. In other words i lose, because idiot AI#1 lost to AI#2 and i couldn't expand fast enough to match AI#2. In other words, the game boils down to who can grab the most territories as fast as possible.

An AI with a bit more sense of self preservation would be welcome. AI's should ask for ceasefire treaties when things are getting too hot for them. AI's should also have an awareness of who is the bigger threat on their borders rather than always picking on the weaker neighbours. There should also be options for secretly funding a neigbouring empire so that you can use them as a buffer against a bigger empire.

Yeah, it would be nice if a chain of successful conquests slowed your momentum in the short run (by introducing instability, etc.) rather than increase your momentum, that way the conquerer would sue for peace more often.

I'm only suggesting my solution of a desperate-times-calls-for-desperate-measures script by the AI when it's obvious that their opponent is intent on completely obliterating them.  It may be their strategy to deal a nasty blow in order to make the negotiating table more appealing.

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

I too, really like this idea.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

I'm only suggesting my solution of a desperate-times-calls-for-desperate-measures script by the AI when it's obvious that their opponent is intent on completely obliterating them. It may be their strategy to deal a nasty blow in order to make the negotiating table more appealing.

Don't forget vice versa. An AI who's desperate should theoretically consider putting his civilization into hock to buy an army or allies to help out against a stronger enemy.

I want AI who can realistically gauge potential threats so that an enemy who's getting ground down by you can appeal to even ambivalent or moderately unfriendly sides to attack you because you're a bigger threat. I can't think of a game that handles alliances of convenience and balances of power rapidly shifting to accomodate changes in allegiance a la 1700s europe. Combine that with an political relations system strong enough that you have to deal with a few mortal enemies thrown into the mix for the cunning to exploit and the diplomacy system alone could sell the game.

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

I really like the idea of significant long term instability coming from conquered cities. This would be a potential counter to too quick of a steamrolling as biting off more than you could chew so to speak would have the potential to have devastating results. Troops would be needed for peacekeeping for quite some time.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

I am all for this idea.

Most AIs don't change plans much when thier situation changes.  I would love to see and AI system where the smaller AI empires stick together a bit more to help protect each other from the big guys.  I like the idea that when it looks hopeless the AI will resort to insane strategys to try and stay alive, all or nothing attacks on your capitol / channeler, giving up half thier remaining empire to a different major power in exchange for an alliance (The half next to the player destroying them), any other off the wall idea to stay alive.

Sammual

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

One reasonable "big response" might be to cut losses.  If an AI had 80 cities and lost 30 of them to an enemy, perhaps it would simply abandon another 20 and defend the final core cities, which are likely more valuable.  Heck: gift 20 of them to someone who isn't yet at war with your enemy.  (I think one of the better GalCiv2 players did something like this once.  He basically got all the other races to do his fighting for him throught the judicious use of gifting planets away.)

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

This could be a great idea. Though, I can see a few flaws in it, some of which you already addressed. This algorithm would have to be coupled with quite a few more so it's not guaranteed to happen every other time. Used in conjunction with other plans though this would be great.

I used to love playing Rome: Total War as the Romans. Eventually though I stopped playing as the Romans because always in late game the Empire would go into civil war. It was a scripted event to follow history. After the first few times this made playing as the Romans late game for me very tedious and as a result my favorite faction became the Seleucids.

I only mention that to show that events that happen every time can make a game predictable and tedious. Sometimes I feel those "easy win" late game battles where you mop up the remaining enemy empire is kind of a reward for fighting the harder battles and gaining supremacy, though they too can get tedious at times so your idea has a lot of merit. I would just like to see it applied with other strategies as well.

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

Chalk up another supporter of your idea, Demiansky! If done right, it would greatly enhance the player's experience.


I think the "Battle of the Bulge" analogy is an apt one:  Faction A, realizing it's losing the war and that the momentum is on the verge of irrevocably shifting in Faction B's favor -- be it a human player or another AI-controlled nation -- launches a bold but risky attack in a desperate make-or-break bid to win the war....or at least persuade Faction B to sue for peace (which would give Faction A a chance to try and recover from its losses). 

 

In addition, I like the idea that if Faction A was successful in its desperation attack, that it would encourage other factions which were previously sitting on the fence to dog-pile on Faction B.  Also, as you pointed out, this would cut down on the tedious "mopping-up" portion of the late game, regardless of whether or not the AI was successful -- if the desperation move doesn't work, then Faction A should collapse that much more quickly (although ideally, it should recognize that victory is no longer realistically possible and simply surrender to you). 

 

The only thing I can think of to add is that it would be nice if the AI could choose other "desperation options" than relatively straightforward military operations:  Perhaps it could decide to undertake that Epic Quest (not unlike in Lord of the Rings where the Free Peoples of the West attempt to destroy the Ring, as a conventional military victory over Sauron would've been impossible at that point).  Similarly, learning & casting the Spell of Mastery would be another way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat -- just as the armies of Faction B are getting ready to storm Faction A's capital, Faction A's ruler/channeler casts the Spell and saves the day! 

 

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Martok, reply 11
Chalk up another supporter of your idea, Demiansky! If done right, it would greatly enhance the player's experience.


I think the "Battle of the Bulge" analogy is an apt one:  Faction A, realizing it's losing the war and that the momentum is on the verge of irrevocably shifting in Faction B's favor -- be it a human player or another AI-controlled nation -- launches a bold but risky attack in a desperate make-or-break bid to win the war....or at least persuade Faction B to sue for peace (which would give Faction A a chance to try and recover from its losses). 

 

In addition, I like the idea that if Faction A was successful in its desperation attack, that it would encourage other factions which were previously sitting on the fence to dog-pile on Faction B.  Also, as you pointed out, this would cut down on the tedious "mopping-up" portion of the late game, regardless of whether or not the AI was successful -- if the desperation move doesn't work, then Faction A should collapse that much more quickly (although ideally, it should recognize that victory is no longer realistically possible and simply surrender to you). 

 

The only thing I can think of to add is that it would be nice if the AI could choose other "desperation options" than relatively straightforward military operations:  Perhaps it could decide to undertake that Epic Quest (not unlike in Lord of the Rings where the Free Peoples of the West attempt to destroy the Ring, as a conventional military victory over Sauron would've been impossible at that point).  Similarly, learning & casting the Spell of Mastery would be another way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat -- just as the armies of Faction B are getting ready to storm Faction A's capital, Faction A's ruler/channeler casts the Spell and saves the day! 

 

I like the last point, Martok.  There could be multiple other ways in which a collapsing AI might select desperate options--- if there were such a thing as "political capital" or "diplomatic capital" they might cash it all in at once in an attempt to gain allies.  Perhaps rather than simply getting a bunch of new allies to go to war with you, they might instead create a "detterance coalition."  Instead of declaring war right off the bat, they might state to the aggresser, "Should you not make peace with our new ally, Kingdom X, we will enter the war on Kingdom X's behalf."  Hm... actually sounds like a topic for a new thread :-) 

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Goodmorning all,

As far as desperate moves go, another optional desperate move was discussed earlier, at
https://forums.elementalgame.com/357530/page/1/#2278923

But I fully agree one of the key things to a good AI will have to be

"
you got to know when to hold them/
know when to fold them/

...
"

any AI that can't see the writting on the wall, is just endlessly frustrating.

Take care all
 Robbie Price

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

He! he! nice idea. Cede territories bordering enemies to a bigger empire in exchange for alliance/friendship etc.

Now that should put a kinker in anyones plans for world conquest.

Boy if the AI did that to me while i was halfway conquering them, i would be real pissed off.